Upload
justin-harris
View
28
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Text
Citation preview
Copyright 1994-2011 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2010 1
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 68568. December 26, 1984.]
GIMENEZ STOCKBROKERAGE AND CO., INC., petitioner, vs.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, MANUEL G.
ABELLO, JESUS J. VALDES, ROSARIO N. LOPEZ, JULIO A.
SULIT, JR., ACKERMAN & CO., INC. and GONZALO T.
SANTOS, respondents.
Jacob, Acaban, Buyson, Correra & Valdez Law Office for petitioner.
Alfonso Medina for private respondents.
SYLLABUS
REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; JUDICIARY REVAMP LAW; SEC. 39
THEREOF APPLIES ONLY TO COURTS; PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.
902-A STILL IN FORCE; REASONS. — The SEC erred in holding that the
thirty-day period for appealing the case to the Supreme Court provided for in
Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A was modified by Section 39 of the
Judiciary Revamp Law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which provides for a period of
fifteen days for appealing from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments or
decisions of any court. The SEC is not a court. It is an administrative agency. It is
of no moment that Section 9 (3) of the Judiciary Revamp Law grants to the
Intermediate Appellate Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of
quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, except those
falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with
the Constitution, the provisions of the Judiciary Revamp Law, and subparagraph
(1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section
17 of the Judiciary Law. Repeals by implication are not favored. The thirty day
period fixed in Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the organic law of the SEC, is still
in force.
D E C I S I O N
Copyright 1994-2011 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2010 2
AQUINO, J p:
The Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission rendered a
decision reversing the ruling of its hearing officer. They ordered Gimenez
Stockbrokerage & Co., Inc. to pay Ackerman & Co., Inc., the sum of P124,426
with 12% interest per annum from the date of demand.
A copy of the decision was received by Gimenez Stockbrokerage on April
13, 1984. Twenty-seven days later, or on May 10, 1984, it filed a motion for
reconsideration.
The SEC denied the motion for having been filed out of time, that is
because it was filed beyond the fifteen-day period for appealing the case to this
Court. In this certiorari, mandamus and prohibition case, Gimenez Stockbrokerage
contends that the SEC was in error because the appeal to this Court could be made
within thirty days, and, consequently, its motion for reconsideration should be filed
within that period (Sec. 1, Rule XVII, New Rules of Procedure in the SEC). llcd
We hold that the SEC erred in holding that the thirty-day period provided
for in section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A was modified by section 39 of
the Judiciary Revamp Law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which provides for a period
of fifteen days for appealing from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments or
decisions of any court. The SEC is not a court. It is an administrative agency. LibLex
It is of no moment that section 9(3) of the Judiciary Revamp Law grants to
the Intermediate Appellate Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of
quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, except those
falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with
the Constitution, the provisions of the Judiciary Revamp Law, and subparagraph
(1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section
17 of the Judiciary Law.
Repeals by implication are not favored. The third-day period fixed in
Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the organic law of the SEC, is still in force.
WHEREFORE, the Commissioners' order dated September 3, 1984,
denying the motion for reconsideration of Gimenez Stockbrokerage for having
been filed out of time, is reversed and set aside. It is directed to resolve the motion
on the merits. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C .J ., Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos,
Copyright 1994-2011 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2010 3
Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente and Cuevas, JJ ., concur.
Escolin, J ., took no part.